Posted on 02/12/2002 8:30:13 AM PST by vannrox
Polarizing Patriotism: Why is there no middle ground?
by Jason Clemence
January 31, 2002
Quite a bit of head-scratching puzzlement has been caused by Charles Bishop's patriotism. Since his death, the 15-year-old who suicidally plowed a small plane into a Tampa skyscraper has been endowed with two sweeping, generalizing adjectives: "patriotic" and "troubled." Perhaps it is time for us to take a hard look at exactly what patriotism has become.
Dale Porter, the headmaster of Bishop's private middle school, has been quoted as saying "I can picture him (Bishop) singing 'My Country 'Tis of Thee'. . . he was proud to be an American." This caricature of the upstanding all-American boy has been repeatedly juxtaposed with the allegation that his suicide note contained sympathies towards Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Consequently, we have a boy who embodies both ends of an increasingly polarized social spectrum.
More than ever, we are forced to decide if we are die-hard patriots or un-American dissidents. Apparently there is no room for any middle ground. Society insists that we ignore the abounding subtleties of this entire conflict and make an absolutist decision to either be a flag-waver or an anti-American freak. President Bush set up this atmosphere of partisan side-taking within hours of the first attacks when he demanded that the rest of the world make a choice to either be with the U.S. or with the terrorists. Even the most isolationist countries such as Sweden and Switzerland, who manage to avoid terrorist attacks on their own nations through the simple practice of minding their own business, could no longer maintain neutrality.
There was no room for discussion of U.S. sanctions in the Middle East. No time to debate the influence of our oil interests or our bullying of Palestinians. The CNN images of American flags being burned in the streets of Pakistan (which might as well have been stock footage since that is a quite common occurrence) instilled the sense that the Islamic world and the Middle East were monolithically conspiring against all that America holds dear.
And so began a national campaign of patriotism. Flags that had only seen the light of day on July 4th and Memorial Day were flying constantly. Statements like "Proud to be an American" and "God Bless America" became fashionable once again. But with this national unity, a troubling undertone of superiority began to emerge. Afghanistan was devastated by Operation Enduring Freedom, but that should come as no surprise. The Taliban was quickly dispatched by the United States ground troops (with only one casualty, certainly a record low for all high-profile American wars), and it seemed that Americans could rest easy once again. However, the greatest threat to our security is not a Fundamentalist Islamic regime or a power-hungry dictator, but our own arrogance that we, as Americans, belong automatically to a higher order of humanity.
Patriotism is a continuum. Having too much of it is just as dangerous and nonsensical as having too little or none at all. The truly patriotic are not those who flew their flags when Bush told them to. They are the people who realize that our concept of personal freedom makes our nation great, but does not make us, as people, superior to any other. True patriotism is embodied by humility and respect for differing opinions, not by bumper stickers with the words "Kill Bin Laden" emblazoned on a red, white, and blue background.
In the past several months I have encountered tasteless jokes about Afghanistan and Islam that are ostensibly meant to be supportive of America; but when the punch line comes, they are nothing but hate and the reinforcement of stereotypes that have no relevance to this war or its impact on the world.
Bad jokes, simplistic slogans, fantasies of violent redemption; none of these things will solve the problem of terrorism and certainly none of them are patriotic. There is such a thing as being a patriot by loving one's country with dignity, and with a realistic understanding of its faults. Too often, especially in the past four months, criticism of American policies has been construed as criticism of America, and people who may have constructive ideas remain silent for fear of being labeled "un-American." This fear is not without precedent; when such people do speak out, no matter how much they reiterate that they are not trying to put down Americanism as a whole, they are typically interrupted with such intelligent rebuttals as, "Well if you hate it here so much, why don't you move to Afghanistan?"
Charles Bishop has been portrayed as a young patriot gone astray. He's also been portrayed as a troubled boy who had no friends and was socially dysfunctional, as most kids who wind up in the newspaper are typically characterized. This broad generalization reminds me of the Reagan-sponsored anti-drug programs of the 1980s which tried to prevent a social problem by associating it with a lack of "coolness." I can see a future campaign slogan of "Only losers commit desperate acts of suicide while sympathizing with American enemies."
The confusion that the Charles Bishop incident has caused is not just due to the apparent oxymoron created by the contrast of his personality and his actions, but also because of a fine distinction that has been created between patriotism and anti-Americanism. It is much easier to diametrically oppose these two concepts than to accept that very few people are one or the other; it allows us to label ourselves and others in order to feel safe in a hostile social climate. Putting American flags on our car antennas, berating all things Islamic, and making people like Bush, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld into icons of American leadership are not actions of patriotic pride. They are the actions of a public that prefers glib, trendy gestures to an open dialogue on the nuances of a complex situation that cannot be boiled down to "You're either with us or against us."
I believe he is confusing "ambiguity" with "schizophrenia." This child was obviously either a)seriously disturbed, or b)under the malignant influence of a substance or person. Most probably a mixture of both -- in any case, he is a poor example for the writer's argument.
I also can't remember Bush telling Americans to "fly a flag" -- as I recall that began spontaneously, but of course the author, being liberal, has no use for historical accuracy.
The author feels that he can turn the debate in his favor by redefining "patriotism" to something more congenial to his point of view. If he were the arbiter of the English language that would be one thing, but he isn't, he's just another liberal pushing vagueness as profundity. Nice try. It is amazing to me the number of liberals who were in open contempt of patriotism six months ago and who are now informing us of the true meaning of the word. I ain't buying.
There was no room for discussion of U.S. sanctions in the Middle East.
Of course there was - and the position of the left was that such sanctions had killed 100,000 Iraqi children and were immoral.
However, the greatest threat to our security is not a Fundamentalist Islamic regime or a power-hungry dictator, but our own arrogance that we, as Americans, belong automatically to a higher order of humanity.
If the author is referring to himself here he might have a case.
The author simply doesn't understand that there is something inherently polarizing in somebody arrogating to him- or herself the right to kill you to get your attention. Attempting to occupy a fictional middle ground with such an individual merely gives him or her a chance to make another attempt. There is nothing moral about this; there is a great deal stupid and suicidal about it.
The confusion that the Charles Bishop incident has caused is not just due to the apparent oxymoron created by the contrast of his personality and his actions, but also because of a fine distinction that has been created between patriotism and anti-Americanism. It is much easier to diametrically oppose these two concepts than to accept that very few people are one or the other; it allows us to label ourselves and others in order to feel safe in a hostile social climate.
Ummm, "I kinda like America and I kinda want to crash a plane into a building to point out their subtle faults?"
How about: "I don't believe that America should be destroyed, but it is evil and must be wiped from the face of the earth."
Or this: "Even though I don't approve of Osama bin Laden, I'm glad that his supporters are causing us to examine our foreign policy by killing us."
Is that good? Is that the middle ground?
That worked so well for the Red Army in the 30s, doncha know....
I realllly want to kill you and eat you.
Let's see if we can find some middle ground: Can I just kill you? No?
What if I just kill you and only eat your limbs? OK?
I'm sure there is some middle ground here....
How about I anesthetize you and only eat one of your arms and one of your legs?
That's a quite reasonable 'middle ground' in this instance.
You just have to allow it.
Defeatist.
Then what the heck is 'middle ground'?
What if there is no 'common ground'? They wanna kill us and we don't wanna die--let's find some common ground there...
If you are not willing to fight you are wasting a gun and ammo.
That's right, I'd shoot every last man in my unit to inspire them to victory!
LOL.
Sounds very macho, but offhand, I can’t think of a more effective way to destroy a military unit.
I’m pretty sure he didn’t mean it literally, i.e. start pumping rounds into guys in your own foxhole due to some perceived lack in their fortitude.
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
How about you just don't backbite the country that gave you these freedoms and avoid crashing planes into buildings or tacitly encouraging those who do
The middle ground is "I love this country and want to see the awful acts of 9-11 dealt with, but I think there's room for debate regarding who constitutes 'they' and what exactly we should do to 'them'."
Cool...
When I burn your house down we can engage in a meaningful dialog about how you actually deserved to have your house burned down and how much money you should give me for doing it.
He who is middle of the road, gets hit by traffic going both ways.
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
What's Clemence's problem? This is true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.